Citation Nr: 21025818
Decision Date: 04/29/21	Archive Date: 04/29/21

DOCKET NO. 19-34 976
DATE: April 29, 2021

REMANDED

The issue of service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. 

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran had active duty service from January 1955 to January 1957.  

The issue of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded.

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. BACKGROUND FOR THE RO ADJUDICATOR: The Veteran contends that he sustained hearing loss during Naval service while working on-ship in an engine room and in a shipyard, being exposed to excessive noise . The Veteran does have hearing loss, significantly worse in his left ear than his right ear. He also indicates that he may have a physical injury to the cochlea in his left ear. Remand is necessary to determine of the Veteran has an injury to either ear, particularly his left cochlea. 

The remand directives follow:

2. Schedule the Veteran for VA examinations with appropriately-qualified medical professionals who can ascertain WHETHER HE HAS HEARING LOSS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LAW AND WHETHER HE HAS A PHYSICAL IJURY TO THE COCHLEA OF HIS LEFT EAR WHICH COULD BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO NAVAL SERVICE. 

The examiner should assume in-service noise exposure and respond to the following inquires:  

a) Conduct any necessary testing of the Veteran’s hearing and provide updated audiometric results. 

b) Determine if the Veteran has any injuries to his ear, particularly the cochlea in his left ear. 

c) Provide an opinion as to whether the Veteran’s hearing loss and/or ear injury is the result of his in-service noise exposure. 

d) The examiner IS ADVISED THAT HE/SHE MUST ASSUME THE VETERAN WAS EXPOSED TO ACOUSTIC TRAUMA WHILE WORKING IN AN ENGINE ROOM AND IN A SHIPYARD DURING HIS NAVAL SERVICE. Although the examiner’s must review the Veteran’s entire file, his/her attention is directed at the following:

* In the Veteran’s January 1957 examination for service separation he noted no relevant hearing or ear complaints and his hearing was deemed as normal per spoken voice and whispered voice testing. Upon examination, the Veteran’s ears were noted to be normal. 

* In a December 2017 statement, the Veteran indicated that he worked in the engine room as a machinist mate and spent time in a shipyard. The examiner noted exposure to excessive noise during this time. 

* In a January 2018 audiological evaluation, the Veteran was noted to have hearing loss in both ears with substantially worse hearing in the left ear. 

* In March 2018, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination. The examiner noted hearing loss for VA purposes, with the left ear worse than the right. However, the examiner opined that the Veteran’s hearing loss was not the result of his service.  

* In the Veteran’s March 2021 hearing testimony, he stated that he was exposed to excessive noise in the engine room of a ship as a machinist mate. The Veteran also stated that he was told by a physician that his cochlea was damaged causing sudden hearing loss in his left ear.

(Continued on next page)

3. Readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the Veteran should be provided a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). An appropriate period should be allowed for response before the case is returned to the Board.

 

 

Vito A. Clementi

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	J. Wozniak, Associate Counsel

The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.